Co-Design of the Structured Personalised Assessment for Reviews After Cancer (SPARC) Intervention

IF 3.2 3区医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Expectations Pub Date : 2025-02-06 DOI:10.1111/hex.70174

Rosalind Adam, Lisa Duncan, Sara MacLennan, Louise Locock, Anne E. Kiltie, Leslie Samuel, Peter Murchie

{"title":"Co-Design of the Structured Personalised Assessment for Reviews After Cancer (SPARC) Intervention","authors":"Rosalind Adam, Lisa Duncan, Sara MacLennan, Louise Locock, Anne E. Kiltie, Leslie Samuel, Peter Murchie","doi":"10.1111/hex.70174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>An increasing number of people are living beyond cancer with unmet health needs. The aim of this study was to co-design a digital intervention to improve health outcomes for people who have completed potentially curative treatment for cancer.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Two co-design workshops were held with patients, clinicians (including oncologists, general practitioners and nurses), digital/computing science experts and third-sector representatives. At workshop one, problems and gaps in care were identified and intervention ideas were generated. At workshop two, a prototype intervention was discussed and refined.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The workshops were attended by 43 people in total: 26 at event one and 23 at event two (six attended both events). Patients valued relationship-based care and felt supported during hospital treatment. Patients ‘fell off a cliff’ after discharge, and there was consensus that more could be done in primary care to support those living beyond cancer. It was proposed that cancer reviews could be integrated into UK primary care chronic disease management activities. A digital form, the ‘Structured Personalised Assessment for Reviews after Cancer’ (SPARC) tool, was developed to support asynchronous consultations that would cover the breadth of problems and health promotion activities required for high-quality primary care for cancer. SPARC could also identify those without problems who do not require review.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>SPARC has been co-designed to support brief but comprehensive cancer review consultations between primary care clinicians and their patients. SPARC aligns with best practice guidelines. The next step is to evaluate SPARC with patients and in general practices.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient and Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>Patient and stakeholder engagement was at the centre of this research study. Cancer organisations such as ‘CLAN’ cancer support, Prostate Cancer Scotland and Cancer Research UK helped us to engage with patients. The Aberdeen University Institute of Applied Health Science Patient Public Involvement group were also instrumental in sense-checking and improving the materials for the second workshop. We plan to involve our patient and carer partners in designing the next stages of our research (including study materials, processes and methods) so that they will be at the centre of evaluating the intervention that they have been instrumental in designing.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70174","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70174","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

An increasing number of people are living beyond cancer with unmet health needs. The aim of this study was to co-design a digital intervention to improve health outcomes for people who have completed potentially curative treatment for cancer.

Methods

Two co-design workshops were held with patients, clinicians (including oncologists, general practitioners and nurses), digital/computing science experts and third-sector representatives. At workshop one, problems and gaps in care were identified and intervention ideas were generated. At workshop two, a prototype intervention was discussed and refined.

Results

The workshops were attended by 43 people in total: 26 at event one and 23 at event two (six attended both events). Patients valued relationship-based care and felt supported during hospital treatment. Patients ‘fell off a cliff’ after discharge, and there was consensus that more could be done in primary care to support those living beyond cancer. It was proposed that cancer reviews could be integrated into UK primary care chronic disease management activities. A digital form, the ‘Structured Personalised Assessment for Reviews after Cancer’ (SPARC) tool, was developed to support asynchronous consultations that would cover the breadth of problems and health promotion activities required for high-quality primary care for cancer. SPARC could also identify those without problems who do not require review.

Conclusion

SPARC has been co-designed to support brief but comprehensive cancer review consultations between primary care clinicians and their patients. SPARC aligns with best practice guidelines. The next step is to evaluate SPARC with patients and in general practices.

Patient and Public Contribution

Patient and stakeholder engagement was at the centre of this research study. Cancer organisations such as ‘CLAN’ cancer support, Prostate Cancer Scotland and Cancer Research UK helped us to engage with patients. The Aberdeen University Institute of Applied Health Science Patient Public Involvement group were also instrumental in sense-checking and improving the materials for the second workshop. We plan to involve our patient and carer partners in designing the next stages of our research (including study materials, processes and methods) so that they will be at the centre of evaluating the intervention that they have been instrumental in designing.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

癌症干预后结构化个性化评价（SPARC）的共同设计

越来越多的人生活在癌症之外，但健康需求未得到满足。本研究的目的是共同设计一种数字干预措施，以改善已完成潜在治愈性癌症治疗的患者的健康状况。方法与患者、临床医生（包括肿瘤科医生、全科医生和护士）、数字/计算科学专家和第三部门代表举行两次共同设计研讨会。在第一次研讨会上，确定了护理方面的问题和差距，并提出了干预意见。在研讨会二，一个原型干预进行了讨论和完善。结果共43人参加了研讨会：事件一26人，事件二23人（6人同时参加了两项活动）。患者重视以关系为基础的护理，并在医院治疗期间感到得到支持。病人在出院后“跌落悬崖”，人们一致认为，在初级保健方面可以做得更多，以支持那些活过癌症的人。有人建议将癌症审查纳入英国初级保健慢性病管理活动。开发了一种数字形式，即“癌症后审查的结构化个性化评估”（SPARC）工具，以支持异步咨询，这些咨询将涵盖癌症高质量初级保健所需的广泛问题和健康促进活动。SPARC还可以识别那些没有问题但不需要审查的公司。结论：SPARC被共同设计用于支持初级保健临床医生和患者之间简短而全面的癌症回顾咨询。SPARC与最佳实践指南保持一致。下一步是在患者和一般实践中评估SPARC。患者和利益相关者的参与是本研究的中心。癌症组织，如“CLAN”癌症支持，苏格兰前列腺癌和英国癌症研究中心帮助我们与患者接触。阿伯丁大学应用健康科学研究所患者公众参与小组也为第二次研讨会的感官检查和改进材料发挥了重要作用。我们计划让我们的病人和护理伙伴参与设计我们研究的下一阶段（包括研究材料、过程和方法），这样他们就会成为评估干预措施的中心，他们在设计中起到了重要作用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

9.40%

发文量

251

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.